Madeleine McCann

limnam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah based on that she should be sectioned

Paranoid delusions.


People have been sectioned for less.

Steve F

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The question about reasons why people think the McCanns are involved?

If that is the question I suggested you do your research. It's all over the Internet.

Why do you think so many people question that it was an abduction?

Lack of evidence maybe?

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Steve F wrote: »

Lack of evidence maybe?

There is no evidence of anything except a child missing so in my opinion nothing should be discounted .All scenarios are possible and so is an abduction . I think whatever happened that night it was a fluke that there is no evidence and probably a perfect storm

Steve F

iamwhoiam wrote: »

There is no evidence of anything except a child missing so in my opinion nothing should be discounted .All scenarios are possible and so is an abduction . I think whatever happened that night it was a fluke that there is no evidence and probably a perfect storm

Thread closed?:rolleyes:

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Steve F wrote: »

Thread closed?:rolleyes:

Sorry ? Have you a problem with someone having an open mind or am I missing sarcasm ?

Kidchameleon

Steve F wrote: »

Lack of evidence maybe?

What evidence would there be?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

Steve F wrote: »

Lack of evidence maybe?

That's the irony. Lack of evidence of anything makes some think it must have been an abduction and yet there is no evidence of that either. No one saw or heard anything.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

That's the irony. Lack of evidence of anything makes some think it must have been an abduction and yet there is no evidence of that either. No one saw or heard anything.

There's a lack of evidence for either scenario, I'm sure that much can be agreed by all.
If there was actual evidence Kate & Gerry caused harm to their child they would be in prison and there would be no mystery.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

SusieBlue wrote: »

There's a lack of for either scenario, I'm sure that much can be agreed by all.
If there was actual evidence Kate & Gerry caused harm to their child they would be in prison and there would be no mystery.

I think I covered that with "no evidence of anything". It's why people are so intrigued and why there is so much speculation.

It's also why there are so many theories. That is never going to change either.

People asking for proof is ridiculous. If it was there, we'd all know about it. I can only speak for myself and say I go with the most likely scenario, in the absence of anything. To me that is accidental death.

Regarding how her body was never found, sadly many people go missing and are never found. Does that mean she had to have been abducted by an unknown person? No, it doesn't, not necessarily. I can't rule out abduction as a possibility though, but there are so many possibilities.

I do hope one day the truth comes out.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

I don't want proof or evidence, I want to know how you think the McCanns did all you accuse them of and in what timeline on the evening she disappeared?

Kidchameleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't want proof or evidence, I want to know how you think the McCanns did all you accuse them of and in what timeline on the evening she disappeared?

Id like to know that aswell but I suspect we will not be told

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Me again!

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Best thing to do is to Google inconsistencies in statements. They have been pulled apart in varying detail on other forums.

I’ve googled and all it’s bringing me to is conspiracy blog. I can’t seem to find anything substantial on the matter. Can you link me to these forums please? You can PM me if you’d rather not post on the thread.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

People asking for proof is ridiculous. If it was there, we'd all know about it. I can only speak for myself and say I go with the most likely scenario, in the absence of anything. To me that is accidental death

Where is the proof that someone died in the apartment? Accidental or otherwise?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

That's the irony. Lack of evidence of anything makes some think it must have been an abduction and yet there is no evidence of that either. No one saw or heard anything.

You don’t have to see or hear anything to certify an abduction. Analyse any missing person case throughout the years, it’s not uncommon for people to go missing without trace, sight nor light. Most evidence in home abductions consist of broken windows or doors. The door was unlocked here, so not much prying was needed, sadly. What evidence would you expect there to be? I can tell you what evidence id expect in an accidental death, none of it was present, however. But that doesn’t make you rule that out, does it?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

You don’t have to see or hear anything to certify an abduction. Analyse any missing person case throughout the years, it’s not uncommon for people to go missing without trace, sight nor light. Most evidence in home abductions consist of broken windows or doors. The door was unlocked here, so not much prying was needed, sadly. What evidence would you expect there to be? I can tell you what evidence id expect in an accidental death, none of it was present, however. But that doesn’t make you rule that out, does it?

Why can't you accept that people don't have to agree with you. An accidental death could be a choking, a bump on the head. It doesn't have to be a gory mess that leaves blood splattered up the wall.

Re the inconsistencies, the Tanner sighting was key. Wilkins said in his rogatory statement he didn't personally see anyone. As that abductor was verified years later as a British man, it actually makes the sighting irrelevant. This has all been discussed in depth on blogs going back many years. There are lots of forums just like this one that have discussed this case and in particular that sighting.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Why can't you accept that people don't have to agree with you. An accidental death could be a choking, a bump on the head. It doesn't have to be a gory mess that leaves blood splattered up the wall.

Re the inconsistencies, the Tanner sighting was key. Wilkins said in his rogatory statement he didn't personally see anyone. As that abductor was verified years later as a British man, it actually makes the sighting irrelevant. This has all been discussed in depth on blogs going back many years. There are lots of forums just like this one that have discussed this case and in particular that sighting.

Any links to those forums?

I do accept people disagree with me. What I fail to accept, or understand rather, is how people can make all sorts of allegations and accusations without a shred of proof or produce some kind of timeline to back up their theories. You say you’ve been reading up on this case for years so I find it strange you haven’t formed some kind of likely or probable sequence that may have occurred that night. Do you think that’s too much to ask?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

I do understand why people are suspicious of them and as cold and detached I think they are, I just can’t bring myself to believe they harmed her. And if she had an accident and they covered it up, they’d want to be absolute psychopaths to have kept up the charade for so long. I do think the cadaver dog signalling in the room was odd, as is the fact she washed the teddy, and refusing DNA testing on the kids. Like I said earlier, a lot of strange decisions.. but I don’t know. I still think she was abducted.

And you know what, that's entirely your opinion and I respect that.

People can take awful things to the grave and do. They aren't all psychopaths, they are usually protecting themselves.

If you can accept the McCanns can come across as cold, detached and made some odd decisions, you have to accept it leaves them open to speculation. People are going to scrutinise and doubt for these very reasons.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Any links to those forums?

I do accept people disagree with me. What I fail to accept, or understand rather, is how people can make all sorts of allegations and accusations without a shred of proof or produce some kind of timeline to back up their theories. You say you’ve been reading up on this case for years so I find it strange you haven’t formed some kind of likely or probable sequence that may have

Google McCann blogs, you will have to search for threads on anything specific though. I read posts years and years ago. Not read them in a long time.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

And you know what, that's entirely your opinion and I respect that.

People can take awful things to the grave and do. They aren't all psychopaths, they are usually protecting themselves.

If you can accept the McCanns can come across as cold, detached and made some odd decisions, you have to accept it leaves them open to speculation. People are going to scrutinise and doubt for these very reasons.

Why are you quoting a post i made months ago?

I’ve asked you plenty in the last five mins. No need to root back lol

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Google McCann blogs, you will have to search for threads on anything specific though. I read posts years and years ago. Not read them in a long time.

Yeah I have, it’s a conspiracy blog. Can you link me to these forums? They may be less bias. Thanks.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

I have told you to search and how. There are forums like this all over the Internet but you will have to look for specific threads on the particular details. I haven't been on them in years so can't vouch for the best, the least bias.

People tend to hold very strong opinions on this case, most people are biased in their thinking. Accepting the McCanns either know what happened or they dont.

Oh, I attached your earlier post to show that you as well have accepted the demeanour of the McCanns has left them open to scrutiny. It wasn't meant to be lol but glad you got a little chuckle out of it.:)

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

I’ve never denied the fact they’re cold and odd... not sure what point you think you’re proving there but that’s fine. Shall I link to your post from two years ago where you stated you believe they killed her? Wouldn’t mind hearing how you came to conclude that.

So you’re admitting the fundamental basis of your theory is based on conspiracy blogs and forums.. ones so top secret you won’t even attach.


Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Re the inconsistencies, the Tanner sighting was key. Wilkins said in his rogatory statement he didn't personally see anyone. As that abductor was verified years later as a British man, it actually makes the sighting irrelevant. This has all been discussed in depth on blogs going back many years. There are lots of forums just like this one that have discussed this case and in particular that sighting.

She claimed that when she saw this man, she walked past Gerry McCann and a friend, Jez Wilkins. But neither of them could remember seeing her.

This was widely reported in the press at the time, and therefore not something that the British media have sought to suppress! There is no contradiction, no retraction here - Jane says she saw the two men deep in conversation, on the other side of the road, she says she did not greet them, they did not see her. She has never changed her story in this regard

Wilkins didn’t even see Jane. She said the two were deep in conversation. Why do you find this so significant? Do you not think it makes more sense for them to validate Jane’s story? Do you expect methodical consistency from every single person in any given statement?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve never denied the fact they’re cold and odd... not sure what point you think you’re proving there but that’s fine. Shall I link to your post from two years ago where you stated you believe they killed her? Wouldn’t mind hearing how you came to conclude that.

So you’re admitting the fundamental basis of your theory is based on conspiracy blogs and forums.. ones so top secret you won’t even attach.


Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I explained quite clearly the point for attaching your earlier post in this thread.

I have never believed Madeleine's parents killed her. I have a post from 4 years ago saying I believe they covered up her death (won't attach here as I'm not sure if it's allowed to quote from other threads but am happy to cut and post it if it's allowed to be done).

I suppose if we are being technical I could extend to their neglect led to her possible death but I have never believed they killed her intentionally. I don't think most people do believe that in fairness.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Well have to leave it there I suppose Sunflower. If you won’t attach the forums that you admit forumate the basis of your theory then there’s nothing to counter-argue.
Would be interested in a response to my above post though

Kidchameleon

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I have told you to search and how.

If it is so easy just provide the links. Telling someone to search themselves just makes you look dishonest. I take it you have no third level qualification, if you did you would know you have to back up your words.

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

She claimed that when she saw this man, she walked past Gerry McCann and a friend, Jez Wilkins. But neither of them could remember seeing her.

This was widely reported in the press at the time, and therefore not something that the British media have sought to suppress! There is no contradiction, no retraction here - Jane says she saw the two men deep in conversation, on the other side of the road, she says she did not greet them, they did not see her. She has never changed her story in this regard

Wilkins didn’t even see Jane. She said the two were deep in conversation. Why do you find this so significant? Do you not think it makes more sense for them to validate Jane’s story? Do you expect methodical consistency from every single person in any given statement?

Jez Wilkins said it was pretty much impossible for someone to have walked past them on a narrow path without him noticing. He also marked on a map where they were standing, on the same side of the road that Jane claims she walked by on. Jane would not need to cross the road to the opposite side, that would make no sense.

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

Any links to those forums?

I do accept people disagree with me. What I fail to accept, or understand rather, is how people can make all sorts of allegations and accusations without a shred of proof or produce some kind of timeline to back up their theories. You say you’ve been reading up on this case for years so I find it strange you haven’t formed some kind of likely or probable sequence that may have occurred that night. Do you think that’s too much to ask?

“Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.


“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
The senior detective said the land was searched but nothing was found. “That is when we decided to send the specialist dogs in. British police informed us about how they could detect the scent of death.”
He admitted that the police had been suspicious of the McCanns from the start of the investigation.
Insp Paiva added: “They disobeyed our request to keep quiet about the details of their daughter’s disappearance while we conducted our investigation. Instead they turned it into a media circus and that gave rise to some suspicions.”


He said that the McCanns should have faced prosecution for leaving their children alone. “They should have been pursued for neglect. People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.”
The court also heard claims that Madeleine died in an accident in her family's Algarve holiday apartment and her death was covered up by her parents who then concocted a tale of kidnap.
“She died in the apartment as a result of a tragic accident and the parents simulated an abduction after failing to care of their children,” Tavares de Almeida, former chief inspector at Portimao police station during the initial months of the investigation, told the court in Lisbon.
“These were the conclusions of a police report signed by me on September 10 2007,” he added.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6977977/Madeleine-McCann-mothers-dream-was-turning-point-in-investigation-court-hears.html

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

Jez Wilkins said it was pretty much impossible for someone to have walked past them on a narrow path without him noticing. He also marked on a map where they were standing, on the same side of the road that Jane claims she walked by on. Jane would not need to cross the road to the opposite side, that would make no sense.

Do you not think it would make more sense to all have a corroborated story that’s consistent with seeing “a man carrying a child in pajamas”? What do you feel is so sinister about the inconsistency?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

The Final Report;


Quote:
The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If it is so easy just provide the links. Telling someone to search themselves just makes you look dishonest. I take it you have no third level qualification, if you did you would know you have to back up your words.

Kidchameleon - Don't post in this thread again. Bringing ones level of education into a discussion is not acceptable.

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you not think it would make more sense to all have a corroborated story that’s consistent with seeing “a man carrying a child in pajamas”? What do you feel is so sinister about the inconsistency?

Because the Smith family saw a man with a female child in just pyjamas on a cold night in another area of the town some time later. The Smith sighting is far more credible and much more likely to be the key to the case but this silly sighting with howling inconsistencies and strange circumstances was pushed all along by them at the expense of the more credible one.

dark crystal

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because the Smith family saw a man with a female child in just pyjamas on a cold night in another area of the town some time later. The Smith sighting is far more credible and much more likely to be the key to the case but this silly sighting with howling inconsistencies and strange circumstances was pushed all along by them at the expense of the more credible one.

The Smith sighting is a lame duck. This has been discussed before.


Kate raised the alarm at 10pm. Gerry was sitting at the public tapas restaurant at 10pm. The Smith sighting was at 10pm some distance away.


Tell me how that squares up in any way to the corroborated events of the evening?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Most people here agreed with a post stating there was NO PROOF to suggest anyhing happened either way. So can I ask why they then feel it’s acceptable to make claims surrounding drugging children, accidental death, disposing of her in a gym bag and subsequent and cover up?

And this isn’t an invitation to deflect the question btw and ask me why I believe there to be an abduction when there’s no proof. An abduction is a reasonable conclusion to come to when all signs fail to point towards anything else. I’ll be interested in those who actually answer this question and don’t manage to deflect.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

dark crystal wrote: »

The Smith sighting is a lame duck. This has been discussed before.


Kate raised the alarm at 10pm. Gerry was sitting at the public tapas restaurant at 10pm. The Smith sighting was at 10pm some distance away.


Tell me how that squares up in any way to the corroborated events of the evening?

Aoife also said the child she saw was wearing a top with long sleeves. Madeline had short sleeves on as did the child Jane saw the man carrying. Aoife also said she was only “60%” sure it was Madeline.
Yet it’s more “credible”, apparently.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Most people here agreed with a post stating there was NO PROOF to suggest anyhing happened either way. So can I ask why they then feel it’s acceptable to make claims surrounding drugging children, accidental death, disposing of her in a gym bag and subsequent and cover up?

And this isn’t an invitation to deflect the question btw and ask me why I believe there to be an abduction when there’s no proof. An abduction is a reasonable conclusion to come to when all signs fail to point towards anything else. I’ll be interested in those who actually answer this question and don’t manage to deflect.

there is no evidence either way for any theory

all any of are doing is thinking up ideas of what might have happened. some based on the what happened at the time and some off the wall like aliens or peodo rings in parliment

all theories are valid untill proven wrong or another theory right.

the abduction theory is one side of the same coin as the accidental death and cover up.

only someone stupid or with inside info would rule out a valid theory. just becasue there is no evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen.

every detective tring to solve any crime is only dealing with theories untill the evidence is found to back that up.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

there is no evidence either way for any theory

all any of are doing is thinking up ideas of what might have happened. some based on the what happened at the time and some off the wall like aliens or peodo rings in parliment

all theories are valid untill proven wrong or another theory right.

the abduction theory is one side of the same coin as the accidental death and cover up.

only someone stupid or with inside info would rule out a valid theory. just becasue there is no evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen.

every detective tring to solve any crime is only dealing with theories untill the evidence is found to back that up.

There have been direct accusations of parental involvement, drugging and body disposal. Just wondering how most have arrived at these “valid theories” when they agree there is no proof for either scenario. Detectives usually have something to work with.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

There have been direct accusations of parental involvement, drugging and body disposal. Just wondering how most have arrived at these “valid theories” when they agree there is no proof for either scenario. Detectives usually have something to work with.

when all those involded do everything posible to make themselves suspects

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

when all those involded do everything posible to make themselves suspects

Which is what?

Charmeleon

dark crystal wrote: »

The Smith sighting is a lame duck. This has been discussed before.


Kate raised the alarm at 10pm. Gerry was sitting at the public tapas restaurant at 10pm. The Smith sighting was at 10pm some distance away.


Tell me how that squares up in any way to the corroborated events of the evening?

Kate said she left the table around 10pm. Clarence Mitchell said none of them
were keeping track of time so it could be up to 15 minutes either side. She then had to go to the apartment and spend some time looking in the apartment before returning to the tapas and alerting everyone else.

The Smiths were not definite on the time they saw the man carrying a child, they mostly relied on a reciept from a till in a bar which could easily be 15 minutes or more out.

There’s no reason to assume exactly 10pm is when everything occurred.

dark crystal

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

Kate said she left the table around 10pm. Clarence Mitchell said none of them
were keeping track of time so it could be up to 15 minutes either side. She then had to go to the apartment and spend some time looking in the apartment before returning to the tapas and alerting everyone else.

The Smiths were not definite on the time they saw the man carrying a child, they mostly relied on a reciept from a till in a bar which could easily be 15 minutes or more out.

There’s no reason to assume exactly 10pm is when everything occurred.

Independent witnesses stated Kate raised the alarm at 10pm. Gerry was still seated with the group at that time in a public restaurant.



The Smith sighting was at 10pm, as they had just left the pub at 21.55 - this was verified by a bill receipt at that time.


Even if you give a 15 minute window amongst all the confusion, geographically, there's no way Gerry could have been where the Smiths claim to have seen him during that time period (21.55 - 22.10). Not one other witness claims to have seen him there either besides the Smiths. Unless the area was completely isolated at the time, surely you would have expected someone else to have seen him too?


Again, logistics dictate that this sighting was a complete red herring.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Which is what?

Almost everything they did makes them look suspicious.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Almost everything they did makes them look suspicious.

Like..

Charmeleon

dark crystal wrote: »

Independent witnesses stated Kate raised the alarm at 10pm. Gerry was still seated with the group at that time in a public restaurant.



The Smith sighting was at 10pm, as they had just left the pub at 21.55 - this was verified by a bill receipt at that time.


Even if you give a 15 minute window amongst all the confusion, geographically, there's no way Gerry could have been where the Smiths claim to have seen him during that time period (21.55 - 22.10). Not one other witness claims to have seen him there either besides the Smiths. Unless the area was completely isolated at the time, surely you would have expected someone else to have seen him too?


Again, logistics dictate that this sighting was a complete red herring.

All we know for absolutely certain is that Jez met Gerry around 9.15pm, the first call to police was at 10.50pm and Pamela Fenn says she heard the commotion just after the news at ten finished, around 10.30pm.

The Smith’s reciept says 9.55pm but that assumes the clock on the till was accurate, it could easily be out by 15 minutes or more either way.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Why do you believe the Smith sighting is more credible when the child being carried had long sleeves and Madeline did not?

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Like..

lying to police
washing maddies toy
instantly saying she was taken instead of just wandered off
stories not adding up
refusing to answer questions
going to play tennis
not spending every minute posible tearing the place apart trying to find her

etcetc

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

lying to police
washing maddies toy
instantly saying she was taken instead of just wandered off
stories not adding up
refusing to answer questions
going to play tennis
not spending every minute posible tearing the place apart trying to find her

etcetc

She didn’t “instantly” state she was taken. It was a realisation she came to almost two hours later. There’s also rebuffs which dismiss every single one of those points there that have been produced already throughout the thread, but of course you know that.

Still nothing that proves they drugged her, she died, they bagged her up and buried her, however. So, a very unusual conclusion to arrive at given that’s literally all you have to forumulate your “valid theory”.

Strange.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

She didn’t “instantly” state she was taken. It was a realisation she came to almost two hours later. There’s also rebuffs which dismiss every single one of those points there that have been produced already throughout the thread, but of course you know that.

Still nothing that proves they drugged her, she died, they bagged her up and buried her, however. So, a very unusual conclusion to arrive at given that’s literally all you have to forumulate your “valid theory”.

Strange.

im not saying that proves they killed her all im saying is that all their wierd behavior and odd things they do makes them no 1 suspects

im open to all theories about what happened

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not saying that proves they killed her all im saying is that all their wierd behavior and odd things they do makes them no 1 suspects

im open to all theories about what happened

It literally doesn’t prove anything though only that they acted in a manner different to what you perceive to be normal in the wake of a missing child.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

It literally doesn’t prove anything though only that they acted in a manner different to what you perceive to be normal in the wake of a missing child.

one or 2 odd things i can ignore or explain away not that many . everything you read about them is odd